Mayday British Airways 268 LAX-LHR could not make to LHR[2]

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 25 Feb 2005, 04:38

We reported already in Luchtzak: Mayday British Airways 268 LAX-LHR could not make to LHR

Here is more:
Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000

two loud bangs shortly after take-off .... streams of sparks shooting from the engine

And: Balpa, the British Air Line Pilots’ Association, gave warning: pilots are being pressured into taking greater risks for commercial reasons.

Did I (and you) read well?
Do British pilots take great risk, and do they feel pressured to take greater risks?
So these pilots are taking risks, but they would prefer not to take greater risks. That is what I understand in these lines.

My Q is: would they be inclined to take greater risks, and for what reasons?
IOW, are they doing this for other reason than for commercial reasons.?
The pilot contacted BA’s control centre in London to discuss what to do

And we know what they decided....
Anyway it looks they would do almost anything for money....

5Y-KQV · Post by **5Y-KQV** » 25 Feb 2005, 11:02

Do British pilots take great risk, and do they feel pressured to take greater risks?

Honestly, I think the flight crew thought that it was safe enough to continue the flight. I doubt that the crew would accept to take a risk that would put not only the lives of the passengers but their own lives at risk. I'm sure in consultation with BA maintenance people on the ground and with the remaining systems on aircraft not showing any other problems (i.e. engine out being an isolated incident), it was perfectly in order to continue the flight to LHR.

I doubt that a carrier of BA's magnitude would elect to take certain risks for the sake of saving some $$$. The headline on the paper that it saved BA some 100,000 pounds is an example of sensational journalism that we have seen in the UK. IMHO it was a wrong choice of headline for a well reported story.

I read somewhere that loss of one engine on a 744 (provided other engines and systems are working) is not considered a real emergency but the range of the aircraft is reduced by 10-15% due to increased consumption from the other engines and the extra drag induced by applying the radar to compensate for the thrust imbalance & the inability of the plane to reach an efficient cruise altitude.

Cheers,

Walter.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 25 Feb 2005, 11:11

5Y-KQV wrote:..... the extra drag induced by applying the radar to compensate for the thrust imbalance & the inability of the plane to reach an efficient cruise altitude. Cheers, Walter.

applying the radar to compensate for the thrust imbalance?
That's what I call risk management, Walter.

Advisor · Post by **Advisor** » 25 Feb 2005, 11:11

I read somewhere that loss of one engine on a 744 (provided other engines and systems are working) is not considered a real emergency but the range of the aircraft is reduced by 10-15% due to increased consumption from the other engines and the extra drag induced by applying the radar to compensate for the thrust imbalance & the inability of the plane to reach an efficient cruise altitude.

Can you tell me the source, Walter. I need it for academic reasons.

5Y-KQV · Post by **5Y-KQV** » 25 Feb 2005, 11:24

Advisor wrote:Can you tell me the source, Walter. I need it for academic reasons.

I will get back to you on this. I have to do some searching.

SN30952 wrote:applying the radar to compensate for the thrust imbalance?
That's what I call risk management, Walter.

Well, even with the same risk management procedures using the same parameters, the outcome can vary depending on the person(s) analyzing the risk (especially where some level of manual input is required). This crew may have elected to fly & a different set of crew may have elected to return to LAX.

Cheers,

Walter.

rwy25r · Post by **rwy25r** » 26 Feb 2005, 11:16

Mmmm... wouldn't have been 'rudder' instead of 'radar' ...

itsdoctorv · Post by **itsdoctorv** » 26 Feb 2005, 13:55

I was going to say, rudder, not radar

That was funny...

I wonder what kind of fuel consumption you would get by reducing the thrust on one side to match the remaining good engine on the other side. You would not have asymetric thrust issues, but you would obviously not fly at optimal speed and altitude. I guess since the BA flight carried on with asymetric thrust, it's more efficient that way...

As for company not taking risks with fuel, the line is getting more blurry every year. Of course, airlines have to stick to ICAO requirements, which is trip fuel + contingency fuel (5% of trip fuel) + alternate fuel + final reserve fuel (30 minutes hold at 1500ft above alternate airport). On top of that, the captain can require extra fuel if he/she feels like they might need it, but he/she better have a very good reason for it. Most airlines monitor exactly on average how much each captains asks for extra fuel. Anybody who asks more than company average has to face management's wrath. Does that make flying more dangerous? In theory no, since you follow the law. On the other hand, you can ask most air controllers and they will tell you that the number of flights declaring 'low fuel' has been increasing slowly since low-costs have invaded the market...

itsdoctorv · Post by **itsdoctorv** » 26 Feb 2005, 14:02

BTW, 'low fuel' is not an emergency. It just means the crew is concerned that they are getting close to the point where they would land with less than the Reserve fuel on board (a big no-no). If your FMS tells you that you WILL get into Reserve fuel, then it is definitely time to declare an emergency, which will give you top priority to land whereever you want. By declaring 'low fuel', you don't get any official priority. You're just telling the controller that it would be nice if it'd get you in sooner than later.